The first observation that Revkin finds utterly shocking is that 20 years ago, Hal Lewis didn’t quite understand that and why the opinions that the changing climate justifies expensive interventions was unsupported by science. I knew very little about the changing climate 20 years ago, too.

However, for Andrew Revkin, the fact that someone can learn something new in 20 years is a shocking news. I will discuss this point later.

Revkin has also asked a few well-defined, elementary questions to Lewis. And Lewis gave him sensible answers. Finally, Revkin invites a distinguished guest blogger who supplements Revkin’s complaints about the “man-made science change” which he clearly equates with “global science disruption” (because science shouldn’t change, should it, Andy?) with a hateful rant.

The author of the rant, David Ropeik, is a remarkable personality who should be worshiped by the Internet and the world population because he is a student of technological risk, whatever this bizarre discipline is supposed to mean. It’s the second most distinguished position in the world after being Barack Obama. To evaluate the technological risk, one primarily has to know the actual technology in question. So the experts in technological risks are the experts in the technology itself.

But the remarkable student clearly has to study something different. You don’t need to guess twice what this novel discipline means: it’s a far-left, neo-Luddite ideological movement that just tries to claim that pretty much all technology is risky. Those people know – and are expected know – nothing about the actual technologies, or anything about the real world, for that matter. Nevertheless, a self-evident idiot is found appropriate by Andrew Revkin to teach a veteran nuclear physicist about technology, technological risk, and the climate science.

Are you serious, Andy? Can’t you really see that Mr or Ms David Ropeik’s brain is just a pile of worthless trash?

Rarely has a debate as concerned about public opinion and the media as that rages today about climate change and the possible responsibility of humanity to it.

Climate scientists themselves are divided into two warring factions. The majority of them seem to fall into the camp “official” one who supports a view that can be summarized in four points:

– The temperature of the earth is increasing and will continue to do so dangerously
– Human activities and particularly emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the major cause of the phenomenon
– We must act to control and reduce these
– There are ways to get there and need to implement urgently to “save the planet.”

But other climatologists, who are increasingly vocal, challenging the very foundations of that reasoning. They argue that climate variations have always existed, and there is no evidence that human activities, including CO2 emissions, have a significant influence on its evolution and the average global temperature.

When oneself is not a climatologist – and there are very few in the world – is it possible to get an opinion? Faced with the difficulty of the subject and scope of the controversy, the temptation is to respond negatively to this question. This article will try to show that it is not, and that a rational approach that could be described as an engineer, that is to say from the facts, can lead a number of conclusions questionable and difficult to throw new light on this complex subject.

Rather than enter the debate between them climatologists about climate change and the potential for humanity to it, the reasoning suggested taking the problem upside down and share a simple question “What is our flexibility with regard to CO2 emissions? Y do we something?

The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication (Bridging Science + Community) reports in American’s Knowledge of Climate Change the following results from a national study of what Americans understand about how the climate system works:

The study found important gaps in knowledge and common misconceptions about climate change and the earth system:

57% “know” that the greenhouse effect refers to gases in the atmosphere that trap heat

50% of Americans “understand” that global warming is caused mostly by human activities

For the last ten years, visitors to NIWA’s official website have been greeted by a graph of the “seven-station series” (7SS), under the bold heading “New Zealand Temperature Record”. The graph covers the period from 1853 to the present, and is adorned by a prominent trend-line sloping sharply upwards. Accompanying text informs the world that “New Zealand has experienced a warming trend of approximately 0.9°C over the past 100 years.”

The 7SS has been updated and used in every monthly issue of NIWA’s “Climate Digest” since January 1993. Its 0.9°C (sometimes 1.0°C) of warming has appeared in the Australia/NZ Chapter of the IPCC’s 2001 and 2007 Assessment Reports. It has been offered as sworn evidence in countless tribunals and judicial enquiries, and provides the historical base for all of NIWA’s reports to both Central and Local Governments on climate science issues and future projections.

NIWA has a printed promotional brochure describing its climate activities, which commences with the iconic 7SS graph. No piece of climate lore is more familiar to the public, and it is better known than NIWA’s logo.

But now, para 7(a) of NIWA’s Statement of Defence states that “there is no ‘official’ or formal New Zealand Temperature Record”.

On 2010 10/10, “ten-teners” were supposed to engaged in various activities to address the 350 problem (as they see it.) The Canmore group decided to do some trail improvements and a gardening project. Naturally, I support trail improvements and am pleased with their efforts. Their thought was that the trail improvements between Canmore and the Nordic Center will encourage skiers to walk rather than drive to the Nordic Center. Whether the new trail means less driving or not, it does create options and only took elbow grease to accomplish. So what’s my beef?

My beef is twofold. The project was led by locals Thomas Grandi and Sara Renner, both world class skiers I’ve been lucky enough to watch compete. Being a competitive skier involves constantly flying around the world even before you add up the fuel burnt hauling skiers up hills and burning gas in 2-stroke snow machine engines. These two have used more fuel in their lives then most of us will in a dozen lifetimes. Burning oil gave them a living and the reputation they now use as a platform to tell the rest of us to use less energy than we already do. Forgive me if I excuse myself from the lecture.

Does this hypocrisy keep them up at night? I suspect it doesn’t since Grandi has used his muscle to get the Alberta Ski Team to buy “carbon dioxide offset credits.” This is Grandi’s get out of jail card for his past gluttonous oil dependency. It’s his “Yes, But.” Yes I flew around the world every week for 14 years burning oil for the noble purpose of racing other people on skies, But…..I now buy credits.